Denial 2016

Deborah Lipstadt, an American professor renowned for her work in Holocaust studies, finds herself drawn into a high-stakes legal battle when British writer David Irving sues her and her publisher in the United Kingdom for calling him a Holocaust denier in her book. In UK libel law, the burden of proof rests with the defendant, so Lipstadt and her legal team—Anthony Julius and Richard Rampton—must mount a rigorous defense to prove that Irving’s portrayal of the Holocaust is a deliberate fabrication.

To prepare their case, Lipstadt and Rampton travel to Poland to visit the site of the former Auschwitz concentration camp, seeking context and corroboration for the core events they defend. There, historian Robert van Pelt offers expert insight into how the gas chambers operated, helping to establish a scholarly baseline for the evidence Irving challenges. The team also subpoenas Irving’s extensive personal diaries to shed light on his methods, biases, and how he shapes his narratives.

As the defence builds its strategy, Lipstadt finds herself frustrated by Rampton’s courtroom approach, which she perceives as sometimes disrespectful or overly blunt. The defence ultimately decides to minimize her direct participation in the day-to-day courtroom work to avoid any perception that she could hinder the case, while still relying on the strength of her writing to anchor the argument against Irving’s claims. Meanwhile, members of the British Jewish community urge Lipstadt to settle out of court to spare herself and the public a lengthy, contentious trial that would amplify Irving’s platform.

Against this backdrop, the case gains momentum when the defence persuades Irving to accept a trial by judge rather than a jury, a choice recommended by the team in part to neutralize his tendency to manipulate jurors via sensationalism. Irving chooses to represent himself, a decision that shapes the courtroom dynamics as he attempts to twist the presented evidence to his advantage. Lipstadt is urged by a Holocaust survivor who pleads to testify, but the lawyers insist on keeping the focus squarely on Irving’s claims and their veracity.

Irving’s strategy hinges on undermining van Pelt’s evidence by challenging the physical proof of Auschwitz’s gas chambers, including questions about whether there were holes in the roof through which Zyklon B could be introduced. The media seizes on Irving’s bold slogan, “no holes, no Holocaust,” which becomes a dominant narrative thread and a lightning rod for public debate. Lipstadt, incensed by the possibility that survivors might be exploited in the process, demands that the courtroom hear testimony from survivors themselves. Julius counters that Irving would use such testimony to humiliate survivors on cross-examination, as he had done before, making it crucial to protect the witnesses and keep the focus on the integrity of Irving’s claims.

Rampton builds trust with Lipstadt, visiting her at home to explain his approach and reassure her that a careful, methodical examination of the evidence stands a better chance of exposing Irving’s distortions. In the courtroom, Rampton’s cross-examination of Irving becomes a focal point, revealing the flaws in Irving’s narrative and opening the door for the case to rest on expert testimony. Respected scholars, including Richard J. Evans, provide corroborating testimony that counters Irving’s misrepresentations and clarifies the historical record.

As the evidence piles up, Judge Charles Gray weighs the issues and raises a provocative line of questioning: if Irving genuinely believes his own claims, can he really be lying about them? The judge ultimately sides with the defence, convinced by Lipstadt’s portrayal of Irving as someone who distorts history for his own ends, and by the strength of the scholarly witnesses and the defense’s careful handling of the material. The verdict is a vindication for Lipstadt and her team, who are celebrated for maintaining composure and dignity throughout a grueling process, underscoring that their published work stood on solid ground and countered Irving’s falsifications.

In the aftermath, Lipstadt is praised for her principled stance and the disciplined work of her lawyers. The film closes with a sense of tempered triumph: Lipstadt’s writing and the legal strategy coalesced to challenge a dangerous denial of historical facts, even as Irving remains defiant in media appearances. The final moments capture Lipstadt and Julius reflecting on the battle, acknowledging that while the courtroom victory was crucial, the real achievement lies in reinforcing the historical truth and ensuring that such distortions do not gain unwarranted traction in public discourse.